If you weren't such a dumbass you'd patch sendmail permanently with, oh, I dunno - qmail. I don't know what you're talking about with SSH. It's certainly had problems, but it's far from comparing to Microsoft's issues. Maybe you should have said, perhaps, BIND. Again, if you're such a dumbass that you're running BIND: patch it permanently with djbdns and stop whining.
Noticing a pattern here? On Microsoft systems, it's Microsoft's fault that your system is in a constant crippled state due to bugs and/or security holes. On a UNIX/Linux/BSD system, it's your own damn fault if the thing's fucked up - especially with the last two.
I'm using IE because my company has a Microsoft-only policy and the Legal Eagles here (aka "idiots who couldn't pass real college courses") have "determined that 'freeware'... is a potential liability". Don't bother asking me what "freeware" means to these whackos, I've no fucking clue and never could get a straight answer.
And, besides, when someone writes the next "Win32.Virus-of-the-Week" and uses this "exploit" (notice how 3/4 of the 'exploits' rely on either Microsoft's or their users' stupidity?) and causes a shitstorm of traffic, spam relays, virus bouncebacks, and whatever else - it'll be news for the rest of us who are smart enough not to use IE when we have the choice. We continue to suffer because there are so many other clueless sods out there on the Network.
Yea, good comparison. That would be an awesome response if it wasn't for the fact that you're using the quote totally out of context and there's an ENORMOUS difference between a psychotic government kidnapping and offing its citizens and some crazy company digging its own grave. I guess if there were a risk that SCO was coming to your house or IBM's house to kick them in the nuts, then you might have made some sense. However, since SCO is merely attempting to play on stupid people's fears and to play the court system - two things which can easily be remedied legally with a little patience, I can only conclude that your neurons were just firing randomly when you trotted out that sorry excuse of a response. Quick! Explain to me how genocide and not having a business plan are somehow related!
Here's a hint, wait... stop me if you've heard this one: IBM CAN TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. Oh.. gee... imagine that.. the court system will actually foil SCO's dirty little plans... meaning.. anyone... who... starts... or... cheers on.. such a thugish, dull attack is nothing more than a petty criminal or an idiot.
So, again, seeing as how IBM is capable of taking care of itself, I'll ask: how is it that SCO deserves to be DDoS'ed? I figure if I ask you often enough, maybe the odds will play out in my favor that you actually answer the question.
A bit of a chuckle for me. If the best you can do is point out my typos, you're in a sorry state. The only thing you'll prove is that I don't spend enough time previewing my posts on a board with a S/N ratio of about 1:500, but I already knew that.
What did I falsely claim you said? I started my original response to your thread by bitching about the side effects of this, then retaliated against your claim that SCO somehow "deserves" being illegally attacked by the most lowbrow, idiotic, mind-numbingly uncreative, and dull attack since mailbombs. I never claimed YOU said any of that stuff in the first half of my first post, I simply said it.
If I'm missing something, please do quote me so I can see where I misquoted you or misrepresented what you said. I'm all ears (or eyes.. or whatever).
SCO is suing IBM. SCO is not suing you. SCO is not suing Linus. SCO is not suing anybody else. Why? Because the crux of SCO's suit is that IBM pissed all over one or more of their contracts regarding UNIX code.
Now, SCO is most certainly attempting to prod stupid people with near extortionist tactics. However, I emphasize stupid because only a complete gibbering moron would pay up based on imaginary code and vague written threats. In addition, I suppose SCO is the problem of stupid investors who don't bother to research the company at all.
So, I amend my original statement. SCO still isn't really our problem since if everyone would just ignore them, IBM's lawyers would thump the shit out of them and they'd silently die off. SCO is a problem for IBM and for stupid people.
If they start suing Linux users, things change. Until then - they're just full of hot air, and you'd do the FOSS community much better to go preach the benefits of FOSS and, more importantly, help people who've decided to take it for a spin. Standing around cheering on some moron who couldn't think of anything better to do then write another spam-enabling POS application that happens to DDoS sco.com only makes people think you're just as technologically incompetent and morally stunted.
If you bought a Viper SRT-10 +tax/tags and paid the first year's insurance you'd still have around 160K left for the defense fund. Not a shabby contribution.
...says the guy who responded to 1/2 of my post like it was the whole thing.
Here's a hint buddy: try reading more than 50% of something before you respond to it. It's amazing how much less of a dumbass you can sound like when you actually read the entire text and understand its context.
Now, again: care to explain how SCO "deserves" someone DDoS'ing them when they are IBM's problem and IBM's problem only?
You know, I normally don't comment on.sigs, but let's see here... if there are all these idiots around you, and you're the common demonitator, what does that actually suggest? I may be crude and rude and nasty to people, but at least I take the time to craft my responses carefully when I'm trying to make a point and don't just wildly fly off the handle and say stupid shit like your post that started this thread.
A whole field full of false positives, while inconvenient, would certainly not outweigh the benefits of being able to rapidly mark hot spots in a known mine field. That's really where the application lies: known mine fields. It would serve both as an inidcator of where NOT to walk and an indicator of where the deminers need to focus.
I wonder how sensitive the flowers are and, more importantly perhaps, whether that sensitivity can be easily controlled in various strains of the plant?
How do they "deserve" this, exactly? This is a mass-mailing worm propogating through unprotected (as in, the people aren't updating their defs and opening the attachments) machines and opening backdoors that could easily be used later as spam relays.
On top of that, how many machines are going to simulatneously rear to life on the 1st and begin transmitting data requests back and forth between www.sco.com and all the different boxes? What effect will that have on the rest of us? While we're talking about the rest of us, I keep getting e-mail bounces thanks to these goddamn morons that have my e-mail address and keep getting themselves infected. And, no, I can't just not give them my address.
Finally, IBM is perfectly capable of handling SCO. I'd like to recognize you for your gullibility, since you've falling to the SCO Threat-o-matic. In case you haven't figured it out yet, SCO has not, can not, and will not make any credible threats against Linux in general and they haven't followed through on any of the other gum-flapping to date. With a few scatterbrained exceptions, nobody is really taking them seriously anyway. Let IBM deal with IBM's problems and drop your smug facade. The only reason you're so pissed off at SCO is because you don't know what's going on, but you like to sound "cool" by bashing them like a lot of the other Slashdotters here. That's fine, nothing wrong with bashing them, but at least try to stay grounded in reality where the thing is pretty contained to a few clueless media outlets, IBM, SCO, Red Hat, and Novell.
God... do you have an MBA or are you otherwise in management by any chance? I ask, because every time we've ever crossed swords, I've gotten the distinct impression that you're living in your own little world and reality just never comes into your decision-making processes.
It'd be moronic for a Linux zealot to not be at the top of the suspects list for what happened here.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that. While I wouldn't be surprised if some fringe looney tune did release it, I'd be equally unsurprised to discover it was a disgruntled SCO employee or just somebody looking to make Linux users in general look bad publicly.
Or, to put it another way, until there's evidence pointing at someone, I'm not going to go jumping off the conclusion cliff like so many of the other folks here have already done.
Stop keeping stupidity from HURTING folks. It's supposed to. That pain helps the learning process. People who can't learn that doing stupid things hurts shouldn't be sheilded.
Why on earth would you assume that it would be some fringe Linux zealot? It could be a pissed off SCO employee, an investor, someone from IBM, any number of UNIX developers. SCO pissed off a lot of people and you don't actually HAVE to use Linux or even care about it to be smart enough to exploit a dumbass Windows user's gullibility.
The only thing more blatantly paranoid than YOUR comment would be to say that Darl himself wrote and released it to make people like you say things like that. Except, Darl is a meathead and I doubt he can spell his own name, so I doubt he wrote it.
Highlights how not to write Perl code since there's no bang line, strict pragma or scope controls and the grandparent is relying on the obtuse open() call rather than using the FileHandle module which would've been much cleaner.
Oh uh... and it does exactly what he thinks it does all the same, except for the last line may or may not print out. Ah, the power of Perl, TMTOWTDI:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; use FileHandle; my $passwdFH = new FileHandle "/etc/passwd", 'r';
print $_ while(<$passwdFH>); $passwdFH->close;
Should do exactly the same thing. S'why Perl's great - do it however you want. I think my way is more elegant, but I also thing the original way was much clearer to the non-Perl slinger.
"All crazy" in U.S. terms means "he screwed with our personal convenience" e.g., he invaded Kuwait which messed with our power-slurping habits. Nobody in any administration in recent memory gave or gives a crap about human rights. We're still "buddies" with China, after all, even though the country's run by nasty little brutes. Ditto India and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and....
Execute a few thousand of your countrymen? No problem. Fuck with my SUV? You're dead.
That's easily one of the lousiest translations I've ever seen, and I've watched a lot of early subtitled Anime. I guess if you take the (likely incorrect) generalization that "young culture" is putting bolts in its collective face and tatooing itself (never mind people have been piercing and inking in U.S. culture for "cosmetic" reasons since the original poster was being carted around in a baby carriage unless s/he is carrying an AARP card) as meaning "independant" and ignore the fact that "young cultures" have tried to be independant from the existing mores of the group for as long as anyone can remember, then your tranlsation is a good one. Since that's not what the poster said, and it's entirely a matter of you taking it to mean "independant", however, it's not a good translation.
Anyone who tattoos their face and puts metal bolts into their body for cosmetic reasons when they are twenty can not seriously be expected to voluntarily support programs to assist the aged and disabled when they are fifty.
That says to me, "I'm going to pick on kids today for what they're doing the same way people have always picked on kids for what they're doing. Then, I'm going to extrapolate that totally unrelated behavior out to those future adults and their future behavior without any sound basis for doing so." The motivation for this baseless extrapolation I can only guess at. However, regardless of the motivation, the point still remains, it made no sense, and provided nothing more than totally unsubstantiated opinion. While the poster is most certainly welcome to his/her opinion, I'm also quite welcome to come in and rip it apart if I see fit. Since it was totally unsubstantiated and, if taken at face value, offtopic, I saw fit.
Or, to put it more simply: like most of the other "Insightful" noise on Slashdot, it was uninformed, baseless opinion being spouted in the completely wrong context at the totally wrong time. God forbid someone on Slashdot should actually bother to support their random injections into the threads with any evidence. We all know that would just kill us right off, huh?
Call me a bigot, but this just seems to be a realistic observation.
Nah, you're not a bigot. You're something else entirely when you ruin a generally well-formed, insightful post by tacking a totally uninformed, baseless paragraph on the end that is nothing more than a bitch about some miscellaneous prejudice you couldn't begin to back up if your life depended on it. Of course, you didn't blame it on the niggers or the A-rabs or the faggots, so nooooo, you're not prejudiced at all.
Congratulations on stringing the reader along only to wrap up on a completely unrelated, baseless note. If you did it on purpose, I'd say it's fair to call this a most excellent troll. If not, you just have as much concept of persuasive writing as I do of rocket science. If it's the latter, some basic English 101 classes at the local community college could most certainly rectify the situation and the teacher would likely be glad to point out why throwing arbitrary, unsupported opinions at the end of totally unrelated banter is a bad idea.
Oh, and I might note that, what, 50 years ago it was you "damn kids" who wore leather jackets and mini-skirts that were so irresponsible.
Christ man, get your head out of your ass before you suffocate and stop trying to shift the blame to somebody else for a moment. Or, would you like to try to make me eat my words by backing up your attack with some facts? I always like to invite people to try who go off on stupid shit like this without any evidence and, amazingly, not one person has ever taken me up on it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you weren't such a dumbass you'd patch sendmail permanently with, oh, I dunno - qmail. I don't know what you're talking about with SSH. It's certainly had problems, but it's far from comparing to Microsoft's issues. Maybe you should have said, perhaps, BIND. Again, if you're such a dumbass that you're running BIND: patch it permanently with djbdns and stop whining.
Noticing a pattern here? On Microsoft systems, it's Microsoft's fault that your system is in a constant crippled state due to bugs and/or security holes. On a UNIX/Linux/BSD system, it's your own damn fault if the thing's fucked up - especially with the last two.
I'm using IE because my company has a Microsoft-only policy and the Legal Eagles here (aka "idiots who couldn't pass real college courses") have "determined that 'freeware' ... is a potential liability". Don't bother asking me what "freeware" means to these whackos, I've no fucking clue and never could get a straight answer.
And, besides, when someone writes the next "Win32.Virus-of-the-Week" and uses this "exploit" (notice how 3/4 of the 'exploits' rely on either Microsoft's or their users' stupidity?) and causes a shitstorm of traffic, spam relays, virus bouncebacks, and whatever else - it'll be news for the rest of us who are smart enough not to use IE when we have the choice. We continue to suffer because there are so many other clueless sods out there on the Network.
They know it's a fake since no virus would disguise itself as such.
"Nobody is getting infected by MyDoom/Novarg, because they KNOW it's a fake since no virus would disguise itself as an MTA error."
"They KNOW it's a fake since nobody on their address list would ever send them a virus."
"They KNOW it's legit because the link in the e-mail opens a webpage in IE pointed at http://www.microsoft.com/"
Yea, good comparison. That would be an awesome response if it wasn't for the fact that you're using the quote totally out of context and there's an ENORMOUS difference between a psychotic government kidnapping and offing its citizens and some crazy company digging its own grave. I guess if there were a risk that SCO was coming to your house or IBM's house to kick them in the nuts, then you might have made some sense. However, since SCO is merely attempting to play on stupid people's fears and to play the court system - two things which can easily be remedied legally with a little patience, I can only conclude that your neurons were just firing randomly when you trotted out that sorry excuse of a response. Quick! Explain to me how genocide and not having a business plan are somehow related!
Here's a hint, wait... stop me if you've heard this one: IBM CAN TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. Oh.. gee... imagine that.. the court system will actually foil SCO's dirty little plans... meaning.. anyone... who... starts... or... cheers on.. such a thugish, dull attack is nothing more than a petty criminal or an idiot.
So, again, seeing as how IBM is capable of taking care of itself, I'll ask: how is it that SCO deserves to be DDoS'ed? I figure if I ask you often enough, maybe the odds will play out in my favor that you actually answer the question.
When your healty... they are called laptop...
Heh heh... the bitter irony.
When you're "healty" they must be called "lapop". :-)
what's a demonitator?
A bit of a chuckle for me. If the best you can do is point out my typos, you're in a sorry state. The only thing you'll prove is that I don't spend enough time previewing my posts on a board with a S/N ratio of about 1:500, but I already knew that.
What did I falsely claim you said? I started my original response to your thread by bitching about the side effects of this, then retaliated against your claim that SCO somehow "deserves" being illegally attacked by the most lowbrow, idiotic, mind-numbingly uncreative, and dull attack since mailbombs. I never claimed YOU said any of that stuff in the first half of my first post, I simply said it.
If I'm missing something, please do quote me so I can see where I misquoted you or misrepresented what you said. I'm all ears (or eyes.. or whatever).
SCO is suing IBM. SCO is not suing you. SCO is not suing Linus. SCO is not suing anybody else. Why? Because the crux of SCO's suit is that IBM pissed all over one or more of their contracts regarding UNIX code.
Now, SCO is most certainly attempting to prod stupid people with near extortionist tactics. However, I emphasize stupid because only a complete gibbering moron would pay up based on imaginary code and vague written threats. In addition, I suppose SCO is the problem of stupid investors who don't bother to research the company at all.
So, I amend my original statement. SCO still isn't really our problem since if everyone would just ignore them, IBM's lawyers would thump the shit out of them and they'd silently die off. SCO is a problem for IBM and for stupid people.
If they start suing Linux users, things change. Until then - they're just full of hot air, and you'd do the FOSS community much better to go preach the benefits of FOSS and, more importantly, help people who've decided to take it for a spin. Standing around cheering on some moron who couldn't think of anything better to do then write another spam-enabling POS application that happens to DDoS sco.com only makes people think you're just as technologically incompetent and morally stunted.
If you bought a Viper SRT-10 +tax/tags and paid the first year's insurance you'd still have around 160K left for the defense fund. Not a shabby contribution.
...says the guy who responded to 1/2 of my post like it was the whole thing.
Here's a hint buddy: try reading more than 50% of something before you respond to it. It's amazing how much less of a dumbass you can sound like when you actually read the entire text and understand its context.
Now, again: care to explain how SCO "deserves" someone DDoS'ing them when they are IBM's problem and IBM's problem only?
You know, I normally don't comment on .sigs, but let's see here... if there are all these idiots around you, and you're the common demonitator, what does that actually suggest? I may be crude and rude and nasty to people, but at least I take the time to craft my responses carefully when I'm trying to make a point and don't just wildly fly off the handle and say stupid shit like your post that started this thread.
Hell, I have no idea. That was a lame attempt at a joke ;) Sun and Microsoft are, after all, just speculation as well.
A whole field full of false positives, while inconvenient, would certainly not outweigh the benefits of being able to rapidly mark hot spots in a known mine field. That's really where the application lies: known mine fields. It would serve both as an inidcator of where NOT to walk and an indicator of where the deminers need to focus.
I wonder how sensitive the flowers are and, more importantly perhaps, whether that sensitivity can be easily controlled in various strains of the plant?
Uh... 20% is 1/5. 1/5 is 3/15. That's 3 companies.
Microsoft, Sun, and SCO.
I see we meet again...
How do they "deserve" this, exactly? This is a mass-mailing worm propogating through unprotected (as in, the people aren't updating their defs and opening the attachments) machines and opening backdoors that could easily be used later as spam relays.
On top of that, how many machines are going to simulatneously rear to life on the 1st and begin transmitting data requests back and forth between www.sco.com and all the different boxes? What effect will that have on the rest of us? While we're talking about the rest of us, I keep getting e-mail bounces thanks to these goddamn morons that have my e-mail address and keep getting themselves infected. And, no, I can't just not give them my address.
Finally, IBM is perfectly capable of handling SCO. I'd like to recognize you for your gullibility, since you've falling to the SCO Threat-o-matic. In case you haven't figured it out yet, SCO has not, can not, and will not make any credible threats against Linux in general and they haven't followed through on any of the other gum-flapping to date. With a few scatterbrained exceptions, nobody is really taking them seriously anyway. Let IBM deal with IBM's problems and drop your smug facade. The only reason you're so pissed off at SCO is because you don't know what's going on, but you like to sound "cool" by bashing them like a lot of the other Slashdotters here. That's fine, nothing wrong with bashing them, but at least try to stay grounded in reality where the thing is pretty contained to a few clueless media outlets, IBM, SCO, Red Hat, and Novell.
God... do you have an MBA or are you otherwise in management by any chance? I ask, because every time we've ever crossed swords, I've gotten the distinct impression that you're living in your own little world and reality just never comes into your decision-making processes.
It'd be moronic for a Linux zealot to not be at the top of the suspects list for what happened here.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that. While I wouldn't be surprised if some fringe looney tune did release it, I'd be equally unsurprised to discover it was a disgruntled SCO employee or just somebody looking to make Linux users in general look bad publicly.
Or, to put it another way, until there's evidence pointing at someone, I'm not going to go jumping off the conclusion cliff like so many of the other folks here have already done.
Stop keeping stupidity from HURTING folks. It's supposed to. That pain helps the learning process. People who can't learn that doing stupid things hurts shouldn't be sheilded.
You, my friendly freak, just got a fan.
Just ignore it until you pass out. Then, you will resume breathing automatically.
Don't hit your head on the way down, though.
Why on earth would you assume that it would be some fringe Linux zealot? It could be a pissed off SCO employee, an investor, someone from IBM, any number of UNIX developers. SCO pissed off a lot of people and you don't actually HAVE to use Linux or even care about it to be smart enough to exploit a dumbass Windows user's gullibility.
The only thing more blatantly paranoid than YOUR comment would be to say that Darl himself wrote and released it to make people like you say things like that. Except, Darl is a meathead and I doubt he can spell his own name, so I doubt he wrote it.
I call shenanigans! File::Slurp is not a standard module! Cheater! Cheater! :p
Heh.. yeah, but if you wrap a single system call in a Perl or shell script, you should be shot.
Highlights how not to write Perl code since there's no bang line, strict pragma or scope controls and the grandparent is relying on the obtuse open() call rather than using the FileHandle module which would've been much cleaner.
Oh uh... and it does exactly what he thinks it does all the same, except for the last line may or may not print out. Ah, the power of Perl, TMTOWTDI:
Should do exactly the same thing. S'why Perl's great - do it however you want. I think my way is more elegant, but I also thing the original way was much clearer to the non-Perl slinger.Who fucking cares?
You will when they label you an enemy combatant and lock your ass up with no lawyer, trial, or contact with the outside world.
You don't screw with hair-brained dictator-wannabes and their psychotic little regimes unless you're serious.
"All crazy" in U.S. terms means "he screwed with our personal convenience" e.g., he invaded Kuwait which messed with our power-slurping habits. Nobody in any administration in recent memory gave or gives a crap about human rights. We're still "buddies" with China, after all, even though the country's run by nasty little brutes. Ditto India and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and....
Execute a few thousand of your countrymen? No problem. Fuck with my SUV? You're dead.
This is like a reality tv show, I love Nasa Tv!
With the exception that this is actually real...
That's easily one of the lousiest translations I've ever seen, and I've watched a lot of early subtitled Anime. I guess if you take the (likely incorrect) generalization that "young culture" is putting bolts in its collective face and tatooing itself (never mind people have been piercing and inking in U.S. culture for "cosmetic" reasons since the original poster was being carted around in a baby carriage unless s/he is carrying an AARP card) as meaning "independant" and ignore the fact that "young cultures" have tried to be independant from the existing mores of the group for as long as anyone can remember, then your tranlsation is a good one. Since that's not what the poster said, and it's entirely a matter of you taking it to mean "independant", however, it's not a good translation.
Anyone who tattoos their face and puts metal bolts into their body for cosmetic reasons when they are twenty can not seriously be expected to voluntarily support programs to assist the aged and disabled when they are fifty.
That says to me, "I'm going to pick on kids today for what they're doing the same way people have always picked on kids for what they're doing. Then, I'm going to extrapolate that totally unrelated behavior out to those future adults and their future behavior without any sound basis for doing so." The motivation for this baseless extrapolation I can only guess at. However, regardless of the motivation, the point still remains, it made no sense, and provided nothing more than totally unsubstantiated opinion. While the poster is most certainly welcome to his/her opinion, I'm also quite welcome to come in and rip it apart if I see fit. Since it was totally unsubstantiated and, if taken at face value, offtopic, I saw fit.
Or, to put it more simply: like most of the other "Insightful" noise on Slashdot, it was uninformed, baseless opinion being spouted in the completely wrong context at the totally wrong time. God forbid someone on Slashdot should actually bother to support their random injections into the threads with any evidence. We all know that would just kill us right off, huh?
Call me a bigot, but this just seems to be a realistic observation.
Nah, you're not a bigot. You're something else entirely when you ruin a generally well-formed, insightful post by tacking a totally uninformed, baseless paragraph on the end that is nothing more than a bitch about some miscellaneous prejudice you couldn't begin to back up if your life depended on it. Of course, you didn't blame it on the niggers or the A-rabs or the faggots, so nooooo, you're not prejudiced at all.
Congratulations on stringing the reader along only to wrap up on a completely unrelated, baseless note. If you did it on purpose, I'd say it's fair to call this a most excellent troll. If not, you just have as much concept of persuasive writing as I do of rocket science. If it's the latter, some basic English 101 classes at the local community college could most certainly rectify the situation and the teacher would likely be glad to point out why throwing arbitrary, unsupported opinions at the end of totally unrelated banter is a bad idea.
Oh, and I might note that, what, 50 years ago it was you "damn kids" who wore leather jackets and mini-skirts that were so irresponsible.
Christ man, get your head out of your ass before you suffocate and stop trying to shift the blame to somebody else for a moment. Or, would you like to try to make me eat my words by backing up your attack with some facts? I always like to invite people to try who go off on stupid shit like this without any evidence and, amazingly, not one person has ever taken me up on it.
I can verify 0.7 on Linux is tested and safe on my box here at home.